g P K E H 



ION. EGBERT TOOMBS. OF GEORGIA, 



IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, 



py 



/ FKBH^ARY iS, 1664. 



NEBRASKA AND KANSAS 



WASHIiXGTON: 

PRHfTED AT THE SENTINEL OFPIOE. 

18 5 4 



\\V 



.ten 



NKliRASKA ANI> KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



HON. ROBERT TOOMBS, OF GEORGIA 



Mr. TOOMBS said : 

Mr. PiiEsiDKNT and Sckatoks: Boin<T some- 
■wliat indisposed, it may be diliicult for nie to 
©uler upon the discussion of the question now 
telbrc you to-day ; but boinoj desirous that it 
ahall not bo delayed, I shall proceed to ofl'er 
8ome considerations in favor of the bill upon 
your table. 

I eonie to the consideration of this bill v.ith 
m heart fdlod with gratitude to the Disposer of 
kuinan events, that, after the confliet.s of more 
iiinn the third of a century, this preat question 
kad found iis solution, not in temporary e.xpe- 
diculs lor allayin;^ sectional discord, bul in the 
irue principles of the Constitution, and upon 
flie broad foundation of justice and rigjit, which 
form the only true basis of fraternityand of na- 
tional concord. In the arorumeut which I pro- 
pose to submit, I would imitate the preat Athe- 
Hian orator, who never addressed an assembly 
of his countrymen without praying to the gods 
of his country that he should utter no word 
that might bring discredit upon the cause of 
truth, or injury to the interests of his country. 
There has been a marked difference in the 
mode of discussing this great question exhib- 
ited by its advocates and its friends. I have 
heai"d no argument that would stand the test 
of nationality, or which could be addressed to 
a mi.xed assembly of my countrymen, fromlhe 
opponents of the bill ; and I have heard none 
from its friends that might not be addressed to 
American citizens everywhere, north and south, 
except to freesoilers and abolitionists, who 
"live and move and have their being" and po- 
litical hopes in sectional antagonism. The 
friends of the mca.sure place their support of it 
upon its conformity to the Constitution, to the 
great American principle of popular sover- 
eignty, and upon the absolute requirements 
of political justice and equality. It is not de- 
manded as a meE^sure of justice to the south, 
though such is its elfect ; but it is demanded 
as an act of obedience to these sound catholic 
nationral principles. 

This qualiiy of nationality is deeply felt by 
the abolitionists and frcesoilcrs, and ludicrous- 
ly exhibited in their frantic raving; against the 
Wealds of the measure nortli and south. Writb- 
m^ HcdoT this sjrcat fact, the senator from Mas- 



sachusetts and his confcdorates not only trrv- 
ducc the mm of the south and their institutioiiH, 
but pours forth the bitterest streams of tiieir 
troubliKl eloquence against those F;cnators and 
other citizens from the iion-slaveholdingSlat«8 
\*ho dare to oxercisf. the rights of American 
freemen, and difiV'r from them on this question. 
It appear-!, from the speech of the senator from 
Massachusetts, that ail such are ''white .'^lavcs" 
whose manhood has been debased and ener- 
vated by the irresistible attractions of the "slave 
power." Others who have joined him on tho 
same side of the subject, have declared that 
executive patronage, and other ignoble mo- 
tives, and not the great question itself, controls 
these northern genilemen. That, in my judg- 
ment, is a libel upon the north. l>ut, if itworo 
true, is this *e argument which they ofTer to 
us to change our institutions, and to bring ua 
to the adoption of theirs in their stead? But, 
sir, I have said that it is a libel upon the north; 
and recent events have furnished the most con- 
clusive proof that it is a libel upon them. 

What, sir, have we seen within the last twe-lve 
months? A large body of American freemen 
in the State of New York, belon<:ing to the 
dominant party, some of them holding oflice 
under the administration, refusing to unite with 
freesoilers and abolitionists as the enemies of 
the country, and surrendering office rather than 
surrendering their principles. This sublime 
act of national patriotism, of disinterested de- 
votion to truth for its own rake, we have all 
seen pass before onr eyes within the last twelve 
months, and we have' seen it backed by one 
hundred thousand freemen of New York. I 
say, then, that 1 am Jittified in saying that the 
.senator in this charge is a libeller of his own 
fellow-citizens of the north. Sir, neither the 
north nor the south can truthfully make the 
boast of Ireland, that she never produced ft 
reptile. Under the exuberance of our institu- 
tions even reptiles will spring np, and may be 
safely allowed to crawl on till smothered ia 
thp.ir own slime. 

Senators, you may disguisa this question a« 
you will; you may cover it up with sophisti-y; 
you may give plausible excuses for your oppo- 
sition to it, but it is precisely the old naked 
question, of whether it is right and expedient 



■or not for Congress to restrict slavery in tbe 
Territories and the States applying for admis- 
sion into the Union. That is the question. 
It is the sole question. Gentlemen have talked 
about compacts, sacred compacts, inviolable 
compacts, binding upon the national honor. I 
shall advert to and comment upon this point 
in its order; but I will now stop to inquire who 
are those who would now teach us lessons of 
personal or of national honor? Sir, they are 
men whom no oatliS can bind, no covenants 
■can restrain — ^men who despise and trample 
under foot the Constitution when it comes into 
conflict with their personal objects — men who 
have stood in moral complicity with treason, 
arson, and murder, fi'om the day that the fugi- 
tive slave law became the law of the land oven 
to this hour. 

These are our teachers of honor. One of 
them, the honorable senator from New Yprk, 
[Mr. Seward,] who, as governor of that State, 
sworn to support the solemn compact, the Con- 
stitution of the United States, failed to perform 
that duty, npon the ground, or rather pretense, 
that a slave could not be the subject-matter of 
felonious "exportation." Compacts, constitu- 
tional compacts, cannot bind them. These are 
our teachers of honor and of the inviolability 
of sacred compacts. What do they understand 
of compacts? I think in some of the northern 
States of this Union, against the popular will, 
against the Amei'ican sentiment which begins 
to widen and spread and deepen throughout 
all our borders, ignominious compacts have 
been made — "coalitions,"! think theycall them — 
by which the officers of a great Commonwealth 
were bartered and sold for the sake of sending 
a man to this floor who does not represent Mas- 
sachusetts sentiment — a compact so odious and 
flagitious as to be justly amenable to the low 
morality of the common law. These are the 
gentlemen who talk about sacred compacts. 

But again : the honorable senators from New 
York, [Mr. Se-vvap.!),] from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
Sumner,] and from Ohio, [Mr. Chase,] in their 
S]^)eeche3 on this floor, declare that they cannot 
and will not cany out even this compact which 
they commend to our honor. Yes, sir, with a 
total destitution of all shame, they declare the 
eighth section of the act of 1820 a solemn com- 
pact between the north and the south ; that it 
extends to all the territory acquired from France 
as the Louisiana purchase ; and then declare 
they will prohibit slavery in all the territory 
of the United States, not excepting that portion 
of the Louisiana Territory lying south of 36° 
30'. They call it a compact, and avow their 
readiness to violate it. In this let them read 
their own, but not another's degradation. 

In the discussion upon which I am about to 
enter, it is my purpose to show — 

Lst. That the bill upon your table is cousti- 
tational, and consistent with the true theory of 
our government. 



2d. That it makes a wise, just, and prop«r 
disposition of the question of slavery. 

.3d. That the eighth section of the act ©f 
1820 is unconstitutional, unequal, and unjust; 
that it is in no sense a compact, or obligatory 
on anybody, and therefore ought to be repealed. 
And 

4th. I shall endeavor to show that the ques- 
tion assumed by the senator from Massachu- 
setts, [Mr. Sumner,] that wo propose to violate 
the established policy of the fathers of the re- 
public, is wholly without foundation, and not 
sustained by either principle or authority. 

That the provision affecting slavery contained 
in the bill does not violate the Constitution ot" 
the United States, I believe is admitted on al 
hands. We have differed and diflei-ed greatly, 
as to the power of Congress to legislate either 
upon the one side or the other of this question. 
Gentlemen from the north, in favor of restric- 
tion, whether in the form of the ordinance of 
1787, as it is sometimes called, sometimes the 
Missouri restriction, sometimes the Wilmot 
[jroviso, while they claim the power to restrict, 
do not contend that its assertion is imperative. 
While the greater number, both at the south 
and the north, who wholly deny the power to 
restrain slavery in the common territories of 
the republic, insist that the omission to legis- 
late against it, which the bill does, is, in obe- 
dience to the imperative commands of the Con- 
stitution itself. 

Mr. President, the main difiiiculty and differ- 
ence between senators on this and similar 
questions a,rises at the starting-point — the very 
basis of the constitutional construction, and 
from the school of politics to which we respect- 
ively belong. Those of the republican party 
hold that this government is one of limited 
powers, and is entitled to do nothing which is 
not expressly authorized by the Constitution 
or plainly necessary to carry out a granted 
power. When I look into the Constitution, 
and find that the power claimed is not there 
under this plain rule of construction, there the 
question with me ends. I have nowhere else 
to look for it. That is the true theory of the 
government; and I believe it is daily gaining 
more universal acceptance, at least in theory. 
The only difficulty on this point has arisen 
from some decisions of the Supreme Court of 
the United States. It is true they have talked 
vaguely about the doctrine of the general sov- 
ereignty of the federal government. I attach 
but little importance to the political views of 
that tribunal. It is a safe depository of per- 
sonal rights; but I believe there has been no 
assumption of political power by this govern- 
ment which it has not vindicated and found 
somewliere. 

I do not belong to this school. I view tbe 
Constitution in a difierent light. I stand upoa 
the great principles which lie at the founda- 
tion of the American revolution — that sorer- 



eignty is with the people of the several States, 
and with no j^ovcrninont whatever. When you 
desire to look at the powers which are confer- 
red, go to your iState constitutions; yon find a 
portion of them there: go to your national 
Constitution ; a portion arc given tlicie. lUil 
what is not found in one or ihe other, the Con- 
stitution of the United States tells you is re- 
served to the Slates respectively, or to the peo- 
ple. 1 believe those gentlemen who have ar- 
gued against this bill have not alluded to that 
sacred instrument, the Constitution. They 
have no use for it; and it was wise for them 
not to allude to it. It gives no color to the 
usurpations of power which they would assert 
and maintain in this clianiber. 

1 concur in the generally received o])inion 
that the right to govern tlie Territories results 
from the j)Ower of aciiuisilion, and must be 
used for the protection, and not the destruction, 
of the rights of those who are entitled to the 
enjoyment of the acquisition. In all govei-n- 
menta the acquisitions of the State belong 
rightfully to the people — much more strongly 
does this princij)le apply to a purely popular 
government. Therelbre any exercise of power 
to injure or destroy those who have equal riglits 
of enjoyment is arbitrary, unauthorised by the 
ooiilract, and despotic. 

Kvery citizen of each State carries with him 
into the Territories this eiiual right of enjoy- 
ment of the common domain. Whether there be 
one, ten, one hundred, one thousand or one mil- 
lion who may emigrate thither, they have all 
the same indestructible right. If but one, he 
is one of the sovereign owners, and has the 
same right to look to his government for jus- 
tice there as though there were a hundred thou- 
sund. Each and all of them are equally \)vo- 
tected by the Constitution of the country, and 
are equally clothed with the indestructible and 
inalienable rights of American freemen. You 
have no power to s'trike from the meanest In- 
dian trapper, the basest trader or camp follower, 
as the senator from New York |Mr. Si-waud] 
styled the people in these Territories, their equal 
privileges — this sovereignty of ri^it which is 
the birthright of every American CTlI/.en. This 
sovereignty may, nay, it must remain in abey- 
ance until the society becomes sufhciently strong 
aud stable to be entitled to its lull exercise as 
a .sovereign Stale. But yet, even in abeyance, 
this sovereignty docs not belong to the general 
government, aud its exercise is a naked usur- 
pation aud unmixed despotism. 

The puv/er and duty, then, of this govern- 
ment, or the inchoate society in the Territories, 
is simply to protect this equality of right of 
persons aud ]>ruperty of all the members of the 
society, until the period shall arrive when this 
dormant sovereignty .shall spring into active ex- 
istence and exercise all the powers of a free, 
sovereign, and indef>cudent State. Then it can 
mould, according to it^ own sovcivigu will and 



pleasure, its own institutions, with the sole re- 
striction that they shall be republican. These 
great principles are fortilied l)y the republican 
ideas of the right and capacity of the peo]jlo 
for seli-government. You leave to the people 
themselves the ex(-rcise of all ju.-^t powers of 
government, and you repudiate the baleful and 
despotic princi|ile of <me people passing laws 
for the government of freemen to whom ihey 
are in no wise answerable or amenable. 

The.se principles Were firmly maintained by 
the acts of iH.'iO, and met tin; almost nnivei- 
sal approbation of ihe American pi.-ople. Ji 
was solely upon them that California was ad- 
milled into the I'nion. Without any action of 
Congress she called her own dormant sov 
ereignly into existence — by her own act plant- 
ed her own "star"' in the constellali(jn of Amei- 
[ lean States, where it was simply recognised as 
[ a fact by the American Congress. 'J'ho free- 
soilers and abolilionists, who now oppose tliLs 
I bill, waived their arrogant prelension.5 to "bind 
! ihe Territories in all cases whalsoi'ver," be- 
j cause the people had exercised this sovereign 
i right to mould their own inslitutioiiH in ac- 
cordance with their anti-slavery opinions. 1 
vindicalcd their right to mould their own insti- 
tutions according to their own pleasure njion 
the same principles which I am endeavoring to 
I vindicate to-day. 

Afler the passage of th« act of ISOO, com- 
nfonly called the compromise, the governor of 
Georgia called a convention of the people to 
take into consideration the grievances which 
were alleged to have boon indicted upon her by 
their passage, and especially by the admission 
of California. I became a candidate for that 
convention, and put forth an address to the 
people reviewing and vindicating those mea- 
sures. Upon the subject of the admission 
of California, I stated in that address: 

'' I liave already attempted to viudicate the 
rijrhls of a people. I'orniing a constitution for ad- 
mission into llie Union, to admit or exclude 
slavery at their owa pleasure, and lo prove that 
Congress, bad no other power over sufh eonslitii- 
tion thus presented than to see that it is republ- 
ean. We deiuandeil it and conj|)rouii.^ed it for 
Missouri. We li.ave (ieinjinded it and seeiire<l it 
for NewMexieo and I'lab. We should adhere to 
it because it is right; but it is expedient as well ru 
right." 

Aud added : 

'•Oue buiulred ami lil'iy thousand American 
citizens, on llie iJi.>ilaiii >horesorthe Paeilicoeeaa, 
having met. by their representative!*, to form a 
cou>titulion forlhein.-^elves. iiuve adjudged it be.<l, 
under their peculiar eirennistanees. lor their ia- 
ti-re-^t, their prosperity, and tlieir buppine.ss, to 
prohibit the inlroduetiou of slavery into their new 
t-'ominonwerdlli. It is liieir business, not our.-. 

I Whether they have decided wisely or muvisely, 
it is not for u.s to determine. We have .'<ettle<l the 

I (lucstion diderenlly lor ourselves: it is not lor 

I them to disturb that judgnienl now or bereal'ter. 

' JiotJi ({!>•(■■< I'nnd iiymi iht ■•'ume grtot )>iiivij'lr — thf. 



right uf a fne jiwph, in oiteriiig the family of 
Ainerican SMte^, to adopt xuch a form ofreptibfico.n 
gove.riinieitt «.? i»- their judgmrtit vrillbest \nc.ie,rvf 
their Hbenies, promote their hajipifirss, aiidptrpet 
note their prosperity. W we are vvi.-ie we will df- 
Iciu! rather ihan re-ist this hinhriphl of Americtiii 
IVecnien, s;o inv.iluable lo us, so forniidable to tli<» 
enemies of ouriiFOperty.niir|)eace. and our saf< ty.'' 

While on this brunch of the subject, and in 
reply to the broad- declaration of the senatoi-ft- 
from New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio, 
[Messrs. Seward, Sumker, and Citask.] thai 
no person, either at the time the measures of 
1S50 .were before Congress, nor in the discus- 
sions afterwards before the country, did any 
one pretend that these measures were in op- 
position to or inconsistent with the principles j 
of the Missouri act. I will take- occasion to 
say that their statements are wholly gratuitous 
and unsupported? by the tacts of the case. I 
was an humble actor in those great events. 
My ovvn.co!i,dnct, especially at home, was sub- 
jected to much animadversion on account of 
my connexion with them, and I vindicated 
them, in the address to ^^hieh I have referred, 
upwn the precise ground that they recovered 
and firmly planted in our political system the j 
great principle bartered away ii^ 182U. j 

I give the following extracts from the same 
address, for the purpose .of showing ray inter- 
pretation of the comprom.ise of 1850. 

'• Congress passed four bills in relation to ter- 
ritory aequired from JVlexico: a bill to admit Cal- 
afiiniiii into the Union : a bill (■b settle the boundary j 
between Texas* nnd Kew Mexico: and bills es- j 
tablishing lerrilorial governinenls both for Kew j 
Mexico and Utah. By them, in my opinion, the j 
govern iiienl lias not perfbrmod its w hole duly to ! 
usj by them the south may not have secured_ all ! 
of her just rights; but she has Jirr/ihj established t 
great and important privciples, and she lias com- \ 
yro'ini.sed itn right, surrendered 110 privciph, lost not 
an ivch of groinid in this great contest. She 
stands as free and uiitramniolled to assert any just 
right in relation to the rommon lerritories as she 
did beibre the l>ills for the e.-tablishment of gov- |j 
ments over them were i«s.<ied, v.illi the advantage, 1 
Jt! least, of having refOveit;d the principle unwise- ! 
ty surrendered in IS'iO.'' |i 

In s{>eaking of the Missouri compromise, I ;| 
said : 

"The struggle was violent and protracted : the 
republic, was shaken to its {bundati^m ; and wise, 
and good, and patriotic, men believed its hour of 
dissolution had come. In an evil hour the south 
bought this clear, plain, and palpable constitution- 
al riglit for Missouri, only at a great price — a price 
that o<ight not to have been paid — a price worth 
jiioro 10 her than the Ihiion. InstCHd of striking 
i'rotii the limbs other young sisier, wiiii the sword, 
the fetters whii-h the north s<.>\i\:l\ uiijii>iiy to im 
pose upon them, the soulli ran^oln(•d iiei' by allow- 
ing slavery to be prohil)itod in all that [lait of the 
I..ouisiaua territory lying north of the parallel of 
36° 'Ay north laiiiude, and west of Missouri. This 
great principle, thus co-mptvnt.istd away in 1620, has 
Utn ro-iciied, ree.-.tabiislud, and again firndy planted 
in our political -ryUinn by the rv.c-tmt action, of Con- 
gre^s.'^ 



The principle of this bill is in confonnitj 
with another important principle of the Con- 
stitution, which it.s oj^ponents disregard and 
violate. I mean the equality of the States. It 
is impossible, under the structure of this gov- 
piniment, that you cau have unequal States. 
By the Con.stitution, each State grants pre- 
cisely the same powers to the general govern- 
ment. The grant is from each separately, eaek 
State respectively, or the people thereof, retain- 
ing all powers rlghtfuilY belonging to a sover- 
eign State, except those thus granted. The 
[lowers of the general government are incapa- 
ble of eulargement by special grants from either 
old or new States, or, indeed, in any other 
manner than that especially pointed out in the 
iiistrnment; therefore equality amoKg the Statea 
is a fundamental necessity of the system. 

This principle of the equality of the Statea 
was lliliy maintained by Jefferson, and Madi- 
son, and Monroe, and all of their contempora- 
ries, whose opinions are entitled to any con- 
sideration tip n questions of constitutional eoi>- 
struction. It is necessarily destroyed by the 
construction of the Missouri restrictionists. 

The argument of the senator from New Yorlc, 
on this point, scarcely rises to the merit of as- 
tuteness. He says Congress may admit new 
States; therefore Congress may reject new 
States; and therefore Congress may place con- 
ditions upon the admission of new States. Ad- 
mit the premises, and the conclusion by no 
means follows. The right to admit and reject 
does not include the right to jntt an unconsti- 
tutional condition upon admission. This is tk© ' 
very question at i;sue which the senator is com- 
pelled to take for granted to make his proposi- 
tion logically correct. There is no express 
power to proliibit slavery in the Territories; it 
has not been attempted to be shown that suck 
a power is necessray to carry out any express 
grant in that instrument. If these two simple 
propositions be true, the arguments in favor of 
the unconstitutionality of the restriction is com- 
plete. But I am willing to place it on the 
most advantageous position which can be 
claimed by its friends. If the power to leg'-is- 
late lor the 'Btafritories was expressly granted 
by the Constirution, it must, if possible, be so 
exercised as*not to conflict with any other 
power granted to the government, or right re- 
served to the " States respectively, or to the 
people." 

That such an exercise of the power is possi- 
ble, is not denied. It is just what the territo- 
rial acts of 1790, 1798, and many others, in- 
cluding these of 1850, have done, and precisely 
what this bill proposes to do. To hold that an 
undefined power, expressly granted, would ne- 
cessarily, in a limited Constitution, absorb afi 
other powers, would of itself be a monstrosifj 
in construction ; but the senator from New 
York attempts to clothe with this attribute an 
implied disputed power. The republican party, 



I' 



through all (lie exponents of its opinion, have ; 
not only liekl ihiit this povcrninenl possosscd 
no power but that which was r.\]irissly ^nanted, 
or whiuh was necessary and proper to carry out 
a granted ]>ower, but that express frrants of; 
jiower must Ijc ciintrolled in thcirexerei.se by' 
other ^'rauts in the Constitution. They utterly 
denied the whole doctrine that undefined 
powers, whether exi)ress or implied, were ne- j 
eessarily unlimited ]iowcrs. 

Thi* great principle was ably and elaborate-' 
ly discussed by the lather.s of t4ic republic in! 
17'.>G, on Jay's treaty. Then the princijilc was 
asserted by deneral Washington, whose great 
name and just consideration with his country- 
men gave great strength to any position he 
might assume, that the treaty-making power, 
being undefined, was unlimited. A debate 
sprung up on that question in the House of 
Representatives which lasted two months. Mr. 
Madison closed that debate uu the side of priv- 
ilege against "iirerogative ; and wlien the KJte 
was taken, it was found that there were fifty- 
four in the alfirmalive and thirty-seven in the 
negative upon the question that, although the 
treaty-making power was undefined, it was not 
unlimited. There was a plain grant of power 
to the President to make treaties, by ana with 
the consent of the Senate. It was an undefined 
graat. There were no express words of limi- 
tation upon it. Still, the rc]iublicr.ns of that 
day, with Mr. Madison at their head, (even 



equals ; leave our fellow-citizens who seek 
homes in the distant 'I'erriiories all lire rights 
of freemen, and they will discliarge to yoy and 
themselves all tin; duties of freemen. 

Senators, I have endeavored thus fartocora- 
ineiid this bill to your consideration, on tlio 
ground that it is in strict eonfyrniily vilh our 
Constitution. 1 have said, also, thai it is wise, 
expedient, and just. Justice is the highest ex- 
pediency, the Kupremest wisdom. Ap[Jying 
that test to the principles of ihTs n-.eai«iiie, 1 say 
that no fair man in any portion of this cou»- 
iry can come to any other enncln>ion ihitn that 
it establishes between the people of ihis Uniu«, 
who are bound together under a eominon Co»- 
stitulion, a linn, a permanent, and la.simg bond 
of harmony. What is it that we of the south 
ask? Do we make any unjust or unequal de- 
mand on the north ? Nohc. Do we ask what 
we are not willing on our side to grant lothem? 
Not at all. We say to them: "(Jenilemen, hwc 
is our common territory. Whether it was ceded 
by the old States, w hether it was acquired by tho 
common treasure, or was the fruit of success- 
ful war, to which we all rallied and in which 
we all fought, wo ask you to recognise lhii» 
great princijile of our revolution ; let such as 
desire go thtre, enjoy their property, take with 
them their flocks an"d their herd??, their men- 
servants and maid-servants, if they desire to 
take them there ; and, when tho appropriate 
time comes for the exercise of the dormant 



a very import nt principle, and one which I 
^hall have occasion to discuss before the dose 
of the session, in regard to a treaty which is 
said, by the public prints, to have been nego- 
tiated, and to bo before the Senate. 

I hold to this construction of the Constitu- 
tion ; and if yon depart from it, where are you 
to stop? If, by a territorial bill, you can regu- 



vvhen the power was assumed bv the f\it.her of i sovereignty of the people, let them fix the'' 
his eountrv,) declared that, though it was an || character of their institutions for themselves. ' 
undefined grant, it was a limited one, and that' This demand on the government is nothing 
rou could not, by treaty, exercise any power j more than to perform the duty ot all govern- 
which was granted by the Constitution to the | ments. It is wise and just in all governmenta 
other departments of tho government. This is I to defend every citizen in the peaceful etijoy- 
" ■ " " ... - I ment of his life, his liberty, and property. It 

is the life blood of a republic; it can do no in- 
i justice that will not recoil upon it. Resting 
j upon the people, upheld and defended and ad- 
ministered by thcin, a republic is impc>tent in 
la career of injustice; therefore such a polJ«y ia 
I as foolish as wicked. 

I I feel that I need spend no more time in de- 
-ate one domes'tic institution of the people, you l' fending the principles of the bill on your table, 
can regulate another, unless liiptation is found [i Neither their constitutionality nor expediencj 
in the Constitution. If you can gobe-ond the ;' have been succcBsfully assailed; but their op- 
ploiii expres<^ grant of power, may yoii not say ! portents have relied upon other eon.sidenittoiw, 
:hat new\States shall have but one senator, and j to sway the judgment of the Senate. 1 hey are 
but half the number of representatives that the !|. sanctioned by the all-ptrvading principles of 
other States have ? If you adopt such a prin- j the Constitution, which is a bond of equality of 
ciplc, yoa would have a great confederacy com- j rights and equality of burdens, binding together 
posed nominally of equal, sovereign, and indc- |i these States and all others that may here^ifter bo 
pendent States, "but whimsically dove-tailed, 1} added to them. Strike from it the features i>f 
and crosslv indented," so that the States them- .j equality aud Stale sovereignty, and instautly 
selves could not understand their respective Ij it perishes; some States will be dependent and 
rights; and they would have to refer to laws' some will be independent, and masters of the 
passed bv Congress to find their coi-stitutional j! rest. I appeal to you, then, to preserve that 
rights. Then, sir, I appeal to gentlemen to |! equality which the Constitution wfw intended 
atand by the landmarks of the fathers of thejjto perpetuate. Under it, little Delawurc, wiih 
ropublic; leave the States where the Constilu- a small population, asserted the righta of aa 
tion leaves them— sovereign and independent |i equal, and is tnuted as an equal hcra. Ma 



stands here to-day, with her one hundred thou- 
sand population, to confront in debate and 
arc'ument, on a footing of equality, the sena- 
tors from New York, with three millions at 

their back. . .• t, . , 

Instead of arguing this question like stat(?s- 
men the freesoilers'and abolitionists who op- 
T>ose'the bill seem to rely on intimidation to 
cflbct their objects. We are invited to listen 
to the rauLterings of the distant thunder of 
popular indignation (not yet audible) which is 
about to burst ujion our ears, and we are 
warned of tlie earthqnakes which are about to 
burst from under our feet. Even if all this 
was as true as it is baseless, it should in no 
wise control the action of American senators 
in determining upon the constitutional rights 
of Ameriofin freemen. But this is not real, but 
melo-dramatic thunder— nothing but phospho- 
rus and sheet-iron. The people of the north 
as well as the south have deliberately affirmed 
the principles of this bill; they have risen in 
the might of their nationality, and crushed and 
overwhelmed these enemies of public peace, 
order, and liberty. They will find but few 
friendfi among American freemen anywhere 
who would gladly now, but for constitutional 
impediments, dismiss them from their service 
with contempt. This clamor has not even the 
merit of novelty. 

Why^ eir, I heard the gentleman frorn New 
York here, two or three years ago, talk just as 
he does now. He and his coadjutors think that 
all the world is moved because they are excited. 
He delared, on the occasion to which I have 
referred, in the discussion upon the bills of 
iSGO, that he would arouse the north, and that 
the cry of "repeal, repeal, repeal!" would ring 
throughout all this broad land. What, how- 
ever, was the result of the threatened rousing 
of ihe people ? What was the result of all this 
vaunting? He went home, and there were 
two or three riots trot up •, but the good sense, 
the patriotism, and the nationality of the peo- 
ple of the north came to the rescue ; and he 
was one of the first to sneak into a political 
PPganJ7.ation which declared that the measures 
of" 1850 were a final settlement, in principle 
and substance, of the various questions to 
which tiicy related. Wherever the storm is 
to come from, it will riot be from that quar- 
ter. Benators may compose themselves; these 
are not the men either to get up or guide revo- 
lutions. 

There was another Senator here, [Mr. Hale.] 
whose desk I have the honor now to occupy, 
who again and again taunted Senators from 
the north who sustain those measures, that 
thev would be driven from their seats ; that the 
mighty north, the free north, would rise and 
drive them from these benches, and send men 
hero who would represent the northern senti- 
ment. Anaong others, the distinguished Sena- 
te- from Michigan [Mr." G-Ji?s] was the es- 



pecial object of his assaults. But the result is, 
that the gentleman who made those declara- 
tions is not here. We see, therefore, that these 
prophesies do not necessarily become history, 
iind we need not be alarmed at them. But, 
judging from the past three years, we may leok 
hopefully for the next three years to finish the 
work so happily begun, and to relieve the 
Senate of these common disturbers of the peace 
and quiet of the R-epublic. 

The senator from Massachusetts, not content 
with perverting the history of his own country, 
misapplies even the ancient and familiar story 
of Theniistocles and Aristides. Themistocles 
wished to take an unjust advantage of the ene- 
mies of Athens, or those who were expected 
shortly to become so. Forgetful of justice and 
right, he'desired the Athenians, under prospect 
of advantage, to destroy the fleets of their 
friends^and allies. The scheme was referred 
by the Athenians to Aristides. He said : 
""Tn%, you can do it; you have go't the power; 
but, Athenians, it is unjust."' We stand in the 
same relation to the north. They have a ma- 
jority in the Senate and in the House ; there- 
fore the power is in their hands, and not ours. 
What argument have we to offer them ? We 
say to them : " We have no power ; we stand 
in a minority ; but we appeal to the true and 
honest men of the north, as Aristides did to the 
Athenians ; gentlemen, you can do this, for 
you have the physical power, but it is unjust." 
We said that in 1850 ; and, in spite of the sen- 
ator from Massachusetts and all his coadjutors 
here, the free north, the honest north, took the 
same course which the honest Athenians did 
under the advice of Aristides. They said : " It 
is unjust, and we will not do it." 

The senator from Massachusetts has also 
talked about this measure disturbing the peace 
of the country. Sir, there is another story of 
ancient history, by which the gentleman might 
h?lve profited. A minister once came to the 
Roman Senate to sue for peace. They asked 
him: " What security do you offer us that, if we 
grant you this peace, it will last and be ob- 
served ?" He said: "Grant us a just peace, 
on fair terms, and it will be durable and per- 
manent ; but give us an unjust one, and it will 
not last long."' All your patchings up will not 
last. You should stand upon a broad national 
principle, that gives the man of the south equal 
privileges with the man of the north. Make 
ihera all leel that, in peace or war, at home Or 
abroad, they stand everywhere upon an equal 
footing, as brothers and citizens of a common 
country'. Then you will have peace. The great 
pacification of 1850 adopted this basis; and if 
that be carried out, M-e shall have a permanent 
peace. 

These measures received the popular appro- 
bation ; that now proposed to be disphiced 
(the Missouri restriction) never did. It was 
odious to tlie north, and not less so to the south. 



1 think T once hoard Mr. Clay say oi» this floor Ij al emincils for the last nine years; and, from the 
that none of the northern representatives, ex-l! day that I entered Congress up to the passage 
cept three or four, who sustained tlie Missouri "of the adjustment measures of 1S50, I never 
act, were ever returned Ic Congress. And three knew tluit gentleman to vote on any slavery 
years ago Mn-. Hale, then a senator from New ', question diiVerent from the most extreme abo- 
Ilampshire. tauntetl northern senators with that ' litionist that during all that time sat iu either 
fact, and said the same result would follow thu branch of Congress; anil \\^ find him to-day, 
adoption of the adjustment nioasvires of l!S')0. in his vote, with the same company. But the 
It does not occur tome now, however, that a : gentleman has, in his speech, hajipily illustrated 
single man lost his place in this Senate, or in i his own moderation. He tells us repeatedly in 
the other House, for sujiporting those measures. ' his speech that Mr. Webster did liiin the honor 
1 know that the democralie parly met at Balti- , to say that he demonstrated that the Wilmot 
more in a national convention, and allirmcd 'i proviso was a humbug; yet, after his own satis- 
those measures; and 1 know that they carried jfacfory demonstration, he still clung to hia 
every State in the Union, except four, mainly humbug, and voted for it to the end. If this 
on that issue. 1 know also that tlie delegates ' is moderation, what would tlie senator call ul- 
of tlie whig party also wont there and allirmed j traism? 

the measures, with sixty-sixdissentinjP^otes, and ;; But the Wilmot proviso is not a humbug; it 
the fact that those sixty-six dissented, aroused | is a principle in deadly hostility to the Consti- 
the indignation cf the country everywhere ; and I tutiou of the country, the union of the States, 
many would not support the candidate put for- i and the happiness ot^ the jieople. It subverts 
ward by that convention mainly on this ground. ; justice, perpetrates wrong, and overturns the 
I would take no other security but that those j cornerstone of republican institutions — the 
who had so atrociously run the race of section- : right of the people to govern themselves. His 
alism so long should not bo allowed to injure second objection is an attempt to weaken a 
my country if they would. 10 very .soutliern l' principle, by suggesting the possibility of abuse, 
whig, I believe, but one, voted for these meas-l He suggests, that if you yield the right of the 
ures in 1850, and but few whigs from the north' people to govern themselves they n)ay do it 
did. I believe now that the opposition of our' very badly. This argument, in its last analysis, 
political friends in tlie northern States to these ' is eijually good against all popular govern- 
measures has struck down tlu; whig jiarty in i mcuts, and has always been the desj^ot's plea 
nearly every State in the I'nion. I believe ! for enslaving the people. But 1 admit the fact, 
there are but two Slates now jjhich have a wliig : tliat, if you yield to the people the right to 
governor, and tliey are Elaine and Massachusetts; mould their institutions, it necessarily includes 
and they were not chosen by a majority of the , the.right to deline the relation of husband ajid 
people. That is the effect of that action. 'wife, and that the establishment of polygamy 
The senator from New York and others .«ay ,' may legitimately result therefrom. But it is 
they have a commission to represent the noi'th just what they have a right to do. 
here. It is true. But I have a right to go hi- When the ])Cople of I'tah make their organic- 
hind thoir credentials, and inquire whether j law fur admission into t^o Union, they have a 
they speak the true voice of their constituents?! right to approximate as nearly as they please 
1 admit their full right, by virtue of their com- . to the domestic manners of the patriarchs, 
missions, to be heard on this floor; but I #m j Connecticut may establish polygamy to-morrow; 
not obliged to receive their opinions as those of' the people of Massachusetts may do the same, 
laeir eoustiluents ; but when the senator from! How did they become possessed of" greater rights 
NVw York assumes to speak for Now York, 1 1 in this, or any other respect, than the ]>eople of 
«>pp.xsc him with the voice of New York her- 1| Utah? The right in both eases has the same 
«elf,\peaking through her own records and her j foundation — the sovereignty of the people. The 
own Dallot-box. 1 believe her people, by a ma- ' senator from Massachusetts adverts to the same 
jority a/" near thirty thousand in IH.VJ, spoke! fact which so greatly disturbs the senator from 
against Vhe senator, and for the Constitution Connecticut, and has made the profound dis- 
and the adjustment of 1850. I covery, that if Brigham Young carried his 

The objootions of the senator from Conuec- 1 many wives to Pennsylvania he would not be 
ticat were yiscursive and unique. The ad- ! permitted to practice polygamy there. That is 
ditional objei^ions v/hich he urged to those al- 1 very true, but why? Siftiply because the sov- 
ready taken v)yre, chielly, that the bill was of- ereign ])ower of Pennsylvania forbids it: and 
tensive to his iV\oderation, and may lead to the i for no other reason whatever. Kvery citizen of 
lamentable cona^quencea of bri?iging Brigham ; each State must conform-to the laws of the 
Young and his jfbrty v. ives into the national! State in which he resides, and this position 
councils. I do not think we should give our- ; strengthens rather than weaker.s the jiosition 
selves much concern about the first objection, assumed by us, that each separate community 
His moderation upon the slavery question ex- has, and of right ought to have, the power to 
ists nowhere except in his own declarations. I . regulate its own insiilutious, subject only to the 
have serred with tliat gentleman iu the nation- i ConiititRtiou of the United States. You may 



i:& 



imagine as many cases of wbat you may choose 
to call abuse of power as you pleiise, but ycu 
cannot crush out popular sovereignty to gd 
rid of its abuses. It will outlive you and your 
follies and prejudices. It is strong in the 
Etrengtb, and rich in the vitality of truth. It 
is immortal. It will survive your puny assaults, 
and will pass on anfi mingle itself " with the 
thought and speech of freemen in all lands and 
all centuries." • 

Mr. President, one of the most curious things 
I have T^itnessed in this discussion is the effort 
upon the part of the abolitionists and freesoilers 
on this floor to press into their service the great 
names and authority of Mr. Webster and Mr. 
Clay. The serjator from -New Yorl;, [Mr. 
Sewakd,] in spile of the declaration of Mr. Clay \ 
that he did not originate the eighth section of 
the Missouri act, that it did not even originate 
in the House, of which he was a member, and 



palpable%violatinn of the Constitution and of 
the common rights of the citizen, and ought to 
be immediately abrogated and repealed. What 
is a contract or compact? Its essential requi- 
site is, that there should be parlies able to 
contract, willing to contract, and who do 
actually contract. This Missouri act lacks 
every one of these essential ingredients of a 
contract. There were no parties competent to 
make a compact. Congress can pass laws 
within their constitutional sphere, and within 
that it can eommand the people of the whole 
United States, but it can make no bargain 
with them. 

By the act of 1820, Congress did not attempt 
to do any such foolish thing ; it passed a law, 
and a very bad law, that w-as all. But if they 
were able t^ontract, thoy did not contract. If 
the North Tound herself, she certainly must 
have been bound by her own representatives ; 



that he did not even know that he voted for it, 1} but a veny large majority of her representatives 
yet still calls it Mr. Clay's work, '' his greater ! voted against accepting the eighth section of 
work " than that of 1850. What protcciion has the act of 1820 in lieu of the restriction on the 
any public man against such pertinacious mis- I State of Missouri, which she claimed until 
representations as this? He has even dared || beaten off from it by the members from the 
to call the spirit of that gallant old patriot from jl southern States, with the addition of some 
the spirit world; but whoever recollects the jj twenty northern representatives. Then^ifany 
events of 1850 will bear nie out in the state- jj bargain was made, it was by these twenty 
mcnt, that the senator from New York is the j members. Q'hereibre, the North iieither made 
last man in this Senate who would have evoked I; the contract nor ratified it after it was made, 
that spirit if he Ind supposed it would have jj but, on the contrary, her representatives came 
some to his bidding. [ up to Congress the very next session, and, in 

The same senator, with intrepid coolness, the face of' the pretended bargain, voted against 
quotes from Mr. Webster's Buffalo speech to j the admission of Mtssouri into the Union, un- 
vindicate his present position; and the very jj der an entirely different and distinct pretext, 
quotation which he makes denounces with the 1 Missouri had a clausein her constitution against 
bitterest invective the very men with whom 
that senator was then and is now acting. To 
whom did he apply the epithets quoted by that 
senator? The national eye involuntarily turn- 
ed to those men who were aiding and abetting 
in Jerry rescues: national men involuntarily 
turned to those who, at Syracuse, were the li- 
bellers and defamers of the expounder of the 



the admission of free negroes into her bounda- 
ries : just such a clause as Mussachusets then 
had, and many of the free States now have. 
Seizing upon this pretext, in spit« of the 
•Siolerfln compact," a large majority of the 
northern representatives voted against her ad- 
mis^on into the Union; but we are now told, 
by tl?e freesoilers and abolitionists, that the ad- 



gam— that we have that, and , ought therefore 
to abide by the restriction. Even this pretext 
is fallacious. Missouri is not to-day in the 
Union through the votes of a majority of north- 
ern members. She is here in spite of their 
vote's. It does seem to me, Mr. PresideRt, 
that the senators from Massacliusetts (Mr. 
Si-MNEii) and Ohio, (Mr. Chase.) and his col- 



Conslitution. The senator, however, does not [l mission of Missouri was our part of the bai- 

believe in spirit-rapping. He did not think 

the spirits would come, and therefore he could 

call on them with safety. But, &4r, those great 

men yet live ; they speak by their votes; they 

are heard through their immortal speeches; and 

by them they v.ill be vindicated through all 

time. 

DiFmissins the Cesser objections to this bill, 
as rather pretexts than reasons, I will proceed I league. (Mr. Wade.) have had sufficient expe- 
to the consideration of 4he third point in the j rience in political bargains and compacts to 
discussion^ We are told that this bill ought have clearer ideas of what constitutes a bar- 
not to pass because it i.s in violation of the gain. 

cio-hth section of the Missouri act of 1820, [j While there can be no such thing as a legiS- 
wiuch the freesoilers and abolitionists insist is Illative compact in this Union, people frequent- 
a compact—a sacred and inviolable compact, to j ly called this Misssouri act a compromise, bo- 
which the honor of the nation, and especiallv cause fair-minded and moderate men yielded 
that of the south, is pledged. I hold this act | much of their personal opinions to prevent 
of 1820 to be- no compact, binding upon no | dangers to the country. In this sense aloJie, 
roan's honor; but, on the contrary, a plain and!! to get rid of the greater outra.ge of tiws exclu- 



11 



eion of Missouri on acconnt of slavery, the 
Houtli sui>porte<l the eighth sec^iion, in liuii ol 
the totiil exchiyion clause of the Iloiibc ol 
Rcpresctitalives, iiniteH with a f'o.v/ moilerute 
tiorthoni nicn, and carried it.: but the majority 
ofthanaiorth did not asj--ent to it then, and nevor 
havo'sinco. .1 have looked careluily thruu^'h 
the history of thoso timos, and 1 have never 
yet found a particle of evidence that a single 
norlhorn or eastern State over did assent to or 
allirm thoMissouii compromise. And the abo- 
litionists .and freosoilcrs, who are now clamo- 
ixi\is for it, su])port it solely bec<ause, as it is now 
presented, it is a naked question of prohibition. 
rhis is the sole reason of their support of it, 
and all the rest ia but fraudulent prote.xls with 
which to delude an.'! deceive better but simpler 
people than themselves. When Aransas was 
admitted into the Union, it was also opposed 
by over fifty northern men on account of 
slavery, as that was the only question made on 
her admission. When Ore.v^on was adniito<l as 
a Territory the principle of the Missouri com- 
promise was again repudiated by the north. It 
was again repudiated by her when California 
and New Mexico were acquire^], and attempts 
were made to apply the principle to those ac- 
quisitions ; and at all times, and through all 
organs of her opinions, has the North uniform- 
ly refused to recognise the act or the principle 
of territorial division upon which it is founded. 
Suppose the Missouri compromise was a com- 
pact or a treaty, with whom was it made? 
Was it with Rufus King, the predecessor of the 
.senator from New York, who made the motion 
in this body, and stood by it for weeks, and 
months, and years, to put the prohibition upon 
the State of Missouri, and who never voted for 
the Missouri compromise ? Was he one- of the 
contracting parties? If he was, he did not 
sig'n the bond. Who, then, represented the 
north? How can any honest man look me in 
the face, and say that that was a contract, which 
tlie north then, yesterday, to-day, now, and for- 
ever repudiates? Let all the world kuov/ it. 
Let the next meeting at Faneuil Hall know it. 
Let the next meeting at the Tabernacle know 
it. Let the true men of the north know it; and 
they will come to a just decision on this ques- 
tion a.s I'eauily as my constituents. The frec- 
soilers falsity history to make it a contract, and 
would have to falsify their own principles to 
niaii^^tain it. 

Such is the true history of this pretended 
compact, rejected by the north when passed, 
rejected by her twelve months afterwards, re- 
jected by her in ISHii, on the admission of Ar- 
kansas, rejected by her in the formation of the 
territorial government for Oregon, rejected by 
her when we attempted to apply the principle 
to Califurnia and New Mexico, rejected every- 
where, and in every ibrni, except when it work- 
ed jirohibition ; and I doubt whether there is 



an opponeat of Uiis bill, on this 23d February, 'isou, says; 



I 18f)4, who will riso in his place and say thai ho 
i.s willing to apply it to the country wc^st. of Ar- 
ktinsuH and houth of 'M')" 'M)^ north latitude. 
There i.s not one I ^'ct tlicy have the cfl'r«ntery 
to say to UH : " Stand by the bari/ain," "main- 
tain plighted fail!) ," " public failli and honor is 
pledged to it.'' Mr. rre.sldcnl, I can command 
no language strong enough to express my aV 
horrenoe cf such ahandonnjent of uU [)ubli* 
principle. 

One of the excuses offered in extenuallon of 
the conduct of seinitors, in not currying outtlKS 
principle of the Mis.scniri compromise to terri- 
tories of the Utiitod Stales subsequently ac- 
quired, ia that it applied specially to the conn- 
try acquired from France. Admit that to l)0 
true; yet, if it was settled upon honest and 
sound principles, it ought equally to be ex- 
tended to all otlicr territory. It.s principle waa 
territorial division lx;lween the north and south. 
If tiiat be a correct princi))le, it can i e apidied 
to all cases; but its pre^sent advocates have op- 
posed every proposition for any division whutr 
ever, and still oppose it. This position con- 
fesses the superiority of the .settlement cf 1850 
over that of 1820, and justifies our preference. 
We .say the settlement of IB.'JO was based upon 
sound, just, and constitutional principle-', and 
we are willing to apply them to all territory ; 
an.d the people have ailirmed it, both the people 
of the north and of the south. 

Sir, I have already argued upon principle tk« 
power of Congress to pass such a restriction as 
that now proposed to be abrogated. It will be 
(bund to be equally w(sll sustained by authority. 
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. Munrue, Gen- 
eral Jackson, General Harrison, and most of 
the distinguished men of the revolution, who 
were living in 1820, when the Missouri restric- 
tion was sought to be imposed, opposed it; and 
many of them both on the grounds of constitu- 
tionality and expedie.icy. Mr. Jefferson, in his 
letter to John Holmes, of Maine, dated the29th 
of April, 1820, strongly condemns both the geo- 
graphical line and the attempt to restrain the 
•"'dilfu.sion of slavery over a greater surface," 
and adds : 

"An abstinence, too, from this act of power 
wonld remove the jealousy exciled l.y the untler- 
takin<^ of Congress to reg:ul,Ue tin- condilion of 
the JifTerenl descriptic ns of men cDin;>o>in;i; a 
State. Tliij-ccrlHinly is tl;c exclusive ligtn oft-very 
State, -which nothing ui the Coiistiiuti.in hHsliiLen 
from Ihem and given to the genend govi-riiinent. 
Could Conirress, for example, fuy th«t the non- 
freemen of ConBe'clieiit >houl(l l)t; fieenu-n, mid 
thai they shall not emigrate into any other Stated 

He then goes on to denounce the re.stnetion- 
ists of his day siS political duicides, and traitors 
''a"-ainst the hope.s of the world." Such were 
thc'^opinions of the author of the ordinance of 
1737, of the Missouri restriction of 1820. 

Again, Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Mr. Mad- 



12 



"lam indebted to you for your4m) letters ol 

February 7 and 19. This Missouri question, by a 
geographical lire of division, is the most portenl- 
mi3"one I hiwe ever eonteniplaled." * * * * 
•' Is ready to rick the Union (or any chance of re- 
storing his party to iwwer, and wriggling himself 
to the head of it; nor is" * * * * '-v/ithout 
his hopes, nor scrupulous as to the means oi lul- 
fiJling them T' 

Mr. Madison, in a letter to Mr. Monroe in 
]820, says: 

" On one side it naturally occurs, that the right 
being given from the necessity of the case, and in i 
suspension of the great 'j)''"i'iple of self-govern- 
ment, ought not to be extended further, nor con- 
tmued longer than the o<;oafiioii might lairiy re- 
quire." 

Mr. Madison says further : 
'■■ The que^tions to be decided seem to be — 
"1. Whether a Usrriierktl restriction bean as- 
snmption of illegitimate power ; or, 

"2. A misuse of legitimate power; and, if the 
latter only, whether the injury threatened td the 
nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from 
a frustration of it. be the greater. 

"On the first point, there is certainly room for 
difference of opinion ; though, for myself, I must 
own that I have always leaned to the belief that 
the r»xi.rUiio7i was not within the true scope of the 
Constitution." , 

Thi6 was the opinion of Mr. Madison, the 
fether of the Conatitution, who participated in 
the deliberation.s of the convention which 
formed it^ and who, the senator from Massa- 
chusetts says, wa.s iuibuftd with the early policy 
©f the government, which he contends was 
against slavery. 

'Mr. Monroe Gscpressod the same opinions in 
a letter to Judge Roane. 

General Jackson, who was also an actor in 
those exciting scenes, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, 
spoke in very strong language in regard to the 
Missouri restriction. He was a man of strong 
■words, and strong will to back them. He 
eaid : 

"I hope the majority will see the evil o( thii 
rash, despotic iut, and admit the State and prevent 
the evil." 

In the same letter, he says that the feelings 
of the south and west are aroused, and that 
Missouri should not retrograde or humlde her- 
self. All these eminent men, whom the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts called up as au- 
thority for his position, are direetJy against 
him. 

Upon these facts, principles, and authorities, 
I submit my third proposition to the Senate as 
proven, to wit: that the Missouri act of 1820 
was not a compromise, in any sen.se of that 
term,butan unconstitutional usurpation of pow- 
er, repudiated l)y both the north and the south, 
and should be repealed as violative of the fun- 
damental law of the land, and of the unques- 
tionable righta of American citizens. 

I now proceed to invite the attention of sen- 
ators to the kist point which 1 propose submit- 



ting to them. It is one . much "relied upon," 
especially by the senator from Massachusetts. 
That S'mator upon a former occasion, as well 
as in his speech yesterday, said that the early 
policy of the government was to restrain and 
localize slavery, and that this bill is therefore 
in opposition to that policy. I shall proceed 
to show thai that senator has totally misappre- 
hended, or wholly misrepresents, the early 
policy of the country, and has failed to malce 
out even a prima facie case in support of his 
theory. The great error of that seiiator in the 
threshold of his argument is in assuming the in- 
dividual anti-slavery opinions of many of the 
leading men of the last quarter of the eigh- 
teenth century to be the policy of the govern- 
ment, it is undoubtedly true, that opposition 
to slavery w^, during that period, the almost 
universal idea of the northern States, and by no 
means limited in the southern States. But it 
is equally true that that idea was not impressed 
on the national policy. And it is a fact well 
wjrtliy of the consideration of that senator, 
that this anti-slavery idea has not advanced 
an inch, but, on the contrary, has receded dur- 
ing the iirst half of the nineteenth century. 

Now, anti-slavery opinions are unknown at 
the south, and are certainly greatly modified 
in the north since the formation oi our Con- 
stitution. The lessons of British and French 
emancipation in America have not been lost 
upon the American people. Men have now 
greater experience of the workings of emanci- 
])ation, and' a clearer cjnception of the whole 
subject, which has not redounded to the ad- 
vancamont of abolition ideas. The nineteenth 
century has cast off many of the follies of the 
eighteenth, and this among others. I have 
sought for the policy of our fathers, not in the 
individual opinions of some of them, but in the 
collective will of the whole society. We must 
look to the Constitution and laws far this col- 
lective will. They, and they alone, ntter the 
early policy, public policy of the republic. 

When we look to the Constitution, we find no 
anti-slavery policy planted in that instrument. 
Gn the contrary, we iind that it amply provides 
for the perpetuity, and not the extinction of 
slavery. It provides for the recapture and re- 
turn of fugitives from labor from every })ortion 
of the republic. It provides for additional 
securities in the form of increased representa- 
tion for slave property. It provides for the 
suppression of insurrection among slaves, and 
pledges the whole power of the republic for 
that purpose. It provides for the increase of 
their numbers, by the prevention of the sup- 
pression of the African slave-trade for twenty 
years, and permitting it forever. The history 
of this last provision is worthy of special note. 
Virginiii and Maryland had forbidden the Afri- 
can slave-trade at the time the Constitution 
was formed, and North Carolina had greatly 
j tramelled it; yet the Constitution swept away 



13 



these restrictions, and compelled theses States 
to permit the shive-trade apjaiiipt their declared 
policy ; and this was done by the voles of New 
England aj,'ainst Vir<3;inia and Maryland. 

1 repeat, the^c clauses of the ConstitntJon 
provided for the perpetuity, and not tlio ex- 
tinction of slavery. Uoro the policy of our 
fathers was unmistakably written down, and 
the writing cannot be perverted. There is not 
a single clause in that instrument which pro- 
vides for, or looks to the aboliti»n or restric- 
tion of slavery anywhere. It is undoubtedly 
true that many of the franiers of the Constitu- 
tion, both trom the uorih and the south, were 
anti-slavery men. They freely proclaimed their 
opinions ; but they planted none of them in 
the organic law, but left the whole subject to 
be managed by those interested in it. There- 
fore, so far from its being true that the Consti- 
tution localized slavery, it nationalized it; and 
i-t is the only property which it does na- 
tionalize except the works of genius and art. 

In the face of these provisions of the Consti- 
tution, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Sumner] continues to assert that the uniform 
policy of our fathers was opposition to shivery. 
The policy of the government after the forma- 
tion of the government, up to 1820, was equally 
decisive against the statements of that Senator. 
He asserted, in a speech on this floor, tv,-o 
years ago, and reiterated it as an important 
fact, I think as many as three times, in his late 
speech, that when President Washington took 
the oath of oftice, in 1789, the national flag 
did not float over one inch of slave territo- 
ry belonging to the national Union. I cannot 
appreciate the importance of the statement to 
the argument, even if it were true ; but as un- 
importa,nt as it is, even that statement is un- 
founded in fact. Before the Constitution was 
formed, the Northwest Territory was ceded to 
the United States, with a prohibition of slavery ; 
but at that very moment the United States 
claimed and held a large extent of territory in 
the southwestern portion of the Union, which 
was settled and occupied by slaveholders, i 
under the protection of the flag of the Union 

I will explain its history in its order. That I 
senator, to make out bis case, supp-esses a ma- 1 
tcrial portion of the action of the first Congress; 
under tlie Constitution. That Congress accepted 
the cession of the Northwest Territory with a 
provision against slavery, and provided for its 
government: and the same Congress accepted 
the cession of Tennessee from North Carolina,, 
with a provision protecting slavery, and pro- j 
vided for its government; extended the ordi- j 
nance of 1787 over that cei;sion audits terri- 1 
tory in the southwest, excluding the sixth and ; 
last Item, which was the anti-slavery clause of | 
that ordinance. Therefore, if it had been true i 
that when Washington took the oath of office 
the American flag did not float over an inch 
of slave territorv belonging to the Union, he 



and hiri first Congress soon altered this state of 
things, and hoisted the American flag over 
slave territory larger than all of tho then free 
States of the Union. 

Tlie ordinance of 1787 was declared by Ma^l- 
ison to be without a shadow of Conatitutioual 
authority; but the first Congresd accepted a 
compact already made, with all of its provis- 
ions ; andanolher compact with North Carolina, 
witii a difl'ercnt provision in regard to slavery ; 
and protected both with the army and power 
of the republic. Therefore it is not true that 
the first Congress took pains to exclude sla- 
verv, or did in fact exclude it from a single 
inch of the public domain. 

The next territorial act in tho southwest was 
that of 1798, over the country to which 1 havo 
referred. This territory was peculiarly situated. 
After the peace of 1763, when Florida waji 
severed from Spain, and pa.ssed into the hands 
of England, tho boundary of Georgia west of 
Chattahoochee river was along the .'{Ist parallel 
of north latitude; but, upoi-i the petition of the 
Board of Trade of London, representing that 
the southwestern portion of the territory «f 
Georgia wa.s too remote from the local govern- 
ment, the British government altered tho 
boundary of Georgia by annexing all tiiat por- 
tion of the State beginning at the mouth of tho 
Yazoo river, running due east to the Chatta- 
hoochee, thence down that stream to the Slst 
parallel of north latitude, thence "west to the 
iVIississippi, and thence up the Mississippi to 
the mouth of the Yazoo, to the territory of 
West Florida. The boundary of Georgia stood 
thus at the time of the revolution ; and, upon 
the peace of 1783, Britain retroceded Florida to 
Spain, leaving the territory before described 
within the limits of the United States, but not 
within the boundary of any Slate. 

The gpneral government therefore claimed, 
and, in 1798, erected a territorial government 
over it, extended the ordinance of 1787 over it, 
.(expressly excluding the sixth, or anti-slavery 
clause of that ordinance.) This whs the clear- 
est indication of national policy on this subject 
which we had up to that time. This territory 
was claimed by the government, without any 
restriction whatever from any quarter. It was 
the first exercise of original, primary, unfettered 
jurisdiction orer the public domain; and, in 
giving it a government, the Congress of 1798, 
with John Adams President, expressly exclud- 
ed the prohibition of slavery from it — as the 
senator would say, dedicated it to savery. 
Therefore, during the whole of the administra- 
tion of General Washington, and during every 
administration from that day to this, the flag of 
the Union has floated over slave territories be- 
lono-ing to the Union, and protected under its 
broad folds every interest of every American 
citizen. Such has been the domestic policy of 



this government. 

What has been its foreign policy in relation 



14 



to this qnestion? Here it h efpally opposed to 
the sUUement and the policy oi'ihe eenator from 
Massachusetts. Since the Constitution was 
framed, we bought Ixmisiana from France, and 
a<^reed by treaty to protect shivery in iL Wc 
piwohase'd Florida from Spain, with a like 
treaty-protection to slavery. We have annexed 
Texas, with express Etipi?.lations in favor of 
slavery ; and by these acquisitions made lander 
additions to the slaveholdiiig territory than the 
•whole area of the thirteen original States. I 
do not say that these acquisitions were made 
because of slavery; I know they were not. But 
they show that it was no part of the policy of 
our fathers to limit or restrain iL These are 
the facts upon which tJie senator has attempted 
to weave his ridiculous theory that the early 
policy of this government was to limit, restrain, 
and finally abolish slavery. 

Sir, I have shown that the eenator from 
Massachusetts has wholly mistaken or misrep- 
resented the early policy of the goverrmeul,. 
This policy was uniform until 1820, when the 
'''new lights," as Mr. Jefferson teriDcd them, 
began a sectional warfare to restore tiiemsclves 
to power. They were anti-republicans, who 
had broken themselves dowu all over the 
country by their alien and sedition laws, by 
their disloyalty to their country iin time of war, 
by their general hostility to popular riglits 
everywhere, and they sought to elevate them- 
selves again to power on the wave of sectional 
prejudices. They failed, as their successors 
have i'ailed and will fail. The republican peo- 
ple of this country uaderatood the fundamental 



principled of their own government. They 

knew that the libertie.i of Ainerica wore won 
by white men for white men, by out race for 
our race, and that boih iu this country and in 
England the sympathizers with the negro rac*; 
are generally enemies and oppressors of v/hito 
men everywhere. 

Senatoi-s, I have endeavored fairly to present 
the argument on this bill. I have endeavored 
to show that it is conBtitutional, wise, and just; 
that it violates no compacts, but sustains tke 
solemn compact of the Constitution ; that it is 
not opposed by the policy of our fathers, but 
in consonance herewith; that it h but the 
aflirmance of the principles of the measui'es of 
1850, which gave such universal satisfaction to 
all parts of the republic, and for^hese reasons 
it calls loudly upon every truly national man to 
stand by and sustain it. By doing so, we sus- 
tain the Constitution — we sustain the just righta 
of every portion of the republic, and the great 
right of the people to self-governments We 
should want no other reasons to commend it 
to our support. The senator from New York 
asks where and v/hen the app'rcation of these 
principles will stop? He wishes not to be de- 
ceived in future, and asks us whether, when we 
bring the Chinese and other distant nations 
under our flag, we are to apply these principles 
to them? For one, I answer, yes; thait, 
wherever the flag of the Union shall float, this 
great republican principle will follow it, and 
will continue to follow it, even if it should 
gather under its ample folds the freemen of 
every portion of the universe. 



A A .«; 



\ 



yy 



